DHANNA RAM Vs. PANNA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DHANNA Ram Petitioner filed an application for ejectment on 25th of August, 1974, against his tenant Panna Lal, on the sole ground of non -payment of rent. 16th of December, 1974, was the first date of hearing when the tenant deposited certain amount with costs and interest which was accepted by the landlord under protest on the ground that the tender was invalid. On 23rd of December, 1974, the tenant filed a written statement and a reading of paras 5 and 9 of the same shows that he admitted that the tender was short due to mistake and apprehended danger of ejectment. Besides filing his written statement,, he also made a statement before the Court on the same date admitting that the tender was short and prayed for time up to 10th of September, 1977. Vide order, dated 23rd of December, 1974, the Rent Controller passed an order of ejectment, the material portion of which deserves to be reproduced below:

(2.) AGAINST the order of the Subordinate Judge, dismissing the objection petition, the tenant filed C.R. 1297/78 Panna Lal v. Dhanna Ram, which was dismissed by this Court. Against the order of the trial Court, refusing temporary injunction, the tenant filed an appeal before the District Judge. The learned District Judge, by order, dated 14th of December, 1978, allowed the appeal of the tenant on the findings that there was no prima facie satisfaction of the Rent Controller and that with a little application of mind the Rent Controller would have come to the conclusion that the tender was not short but rather in excess and while forming this "view he took support from the two Supreme Court decisions, referred to above, and held that the consent order of ejectment was a nullity and while quashing the same directed that the Rent Controller shall proceed with the application for ejectment after reviving the same in accordance with law. Aggrieved against this order, the landlord has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) THE tenant impugned the executability and the validity of the ejectment order before the Executing Court as well as in the suit. The Executing Court held that the same was executable and was not null and void as the order of ejectment was clearly based on the ground of invalid tender. This order of the Executing Court has been upheld by this Court in revision. These orders have not been challenged by the tenant in appeal before the Supreme Court with the result that they have become final between the parties. The finding recorded in the execution proceedings between the parties, therefore, operates as res judicata between them in the suit as well as in the application for the grant of temporary injunction. Consequently, I hold that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to take a contrary view and the decision of the Executing Court rejecting the objections of the tenant and the order of the High Court upholding the same operated as res judicata between the parties. On this ground alone, the order of the learned District Judge would be liable to be set aside.